Sohn set out recommendations to ensure that the Internet is accessible and affordable and that broadband Internet access service (BIAS) providers and online platforms are transparent about how they conduct their businesses. Affordable access to the Internet is rarely discussed in conversations about Internet openness. An open network is of limited value, however, if significant numbers of people cannot access it for cost or other reasons. In the United States, fully twenty percent of Americans are not connected to BIAS.
In my previous post, I highlighted four reasons why the U.S needs a unified policy framework for an open Internet ecosystem: 1) lack of competition/incentive and the ability to discriminate; 2) collection of and control over personal data; 3) lack of transparency; and 4) inadequacy of current laws and enforcement. Many of these problems can be addressed with targeted legislative and regulatory interventions.
[Analysis] In a new article for the Georgetown Law Technology Review, I seek to jumpstart a conversation about how to shape an Internet ecosystem that will serve the public interest. First, let me lay out the rationale for a new, unified policy framework for an open Internet: 1) Lack of Competition/Incentive and Ability to Discriminate, 2) Collection of and Control over Personal Data, 3) Lack of Transparency, and 4) Inadequacy of Current Laws and Enforcement.
Last week, T-Mobile and Sprint officially filed their public interest statement on their merger to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
This has been, perhaps, one of the most important weeks in the history of the Internet. On June 11, the repeal of net neutrality consumer protections went into effect, laying the regulatory groundwork for large Internet service providers to (transparently) favor some (their own) content. On June 12, a court approved a huge combination of content with a major internet service provider. We can do the math.
On April 29, 2018, T-Mobile US and Sprint announced that the boards of the two companies had agreed to enter into an agreement to merge. The companies said they hope to close the deal in the first half of 2019. The most obvious argument in favor the deal?
On Tuesday, April 17, the House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing – entitled “From Core to Edge: Perspective on Internet Prioritization” – to better understanding of how network operators manage data flows over the Internet and how data is prioritized from the network core to the edge.
[Commentary] We are in a brave new world. Facebook and 'Big Tech' have contributed to the erosion of our democratic discourse. We need to have these new titans assume responsibilities on par to the influence they have over our information ecosystem. We need to address this bug in our democracy. Short-term policy solutions can help curb some of Facebook’s harmful effects, but the larger task before policymakers -- and all of us -- is to critically examine the long-term health of our democratic discourse.
[Commentary] Is it time to recognize that Facebook, and ‘Big Tech’ at large, may be a bug in our democracy? In Part 1, I examined how the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica story illustrates the harmful effects of “Surveillance Capitalism.” The erosion of our privacy is contributing to the declining health of our democratic discourse. Moreover though, Facebook has facilitated the proliferation of hate speech, fake news, and international electoral interference.